mdedetrich commented on PR #2555: URL: https://github.com/apache/pekko/pull/2555#issuecomment-3649873338
> The existing method causes us zero pain. I'm sorry this is a terrible argument in general, I mean why did we go ahead and remove all of the Pekko 1.x deprecated methods in Pekko 2.x? I could just as easily argue that there was no reason for removing these those deprecated as it causes us zero pain and yet we did it. > Users might be using it. All evidence points to the contrary. We have been deprecating these methods for a while now and there hasn't been a single complaint. In fact I don't think it's ridiculous to claim that deprecating these Future methods and removing it in Pekko 2.x is causing us zero pain as well (that also includes our users) > We are in no position to tell anyone what long existing methods that they can and can't use. Yes we most certainly are if it's a breaking release of Pekko, that's the whole point of a breaking point release. > Users expect to be able to upgrade lib versions without any hassle. You can claim that a major release allows us to remove whatever you like but what you are really doing is convincing a large proportion of our users to not upgrade. These users choose to either: > > * stick to an outdated release that doesn't get fixes > > * or pay a company to provide them LTS on the old release > > * or plan to move to a new set of libs that don't go around changing their APIs And again, we have been deprecating these methods for a while and no has complained and that's not surprising because it would be shocking if any Java users willingly used Scala Future. There is an obvious misalignment/tension here and rejecting PRs like this is in my view too far. Can we discuss this on the mailing list and make an executive decision on it. The whole premise of deprecating these Future methods in the java dsl is it should be done as soon as possible so we can actually get feedback from Java users on releases, and this PR should have been in Pekko 1.4.0 for exactly this reason. I am on the verge of blocking future Pekko 1.x releases over this, as this argument comes up again and again and it's the same arguments that cause us to go around in circles. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
